501 F. App'x 5
1st Cir.2013Background
- In 2009 a federal grand jury returned a 23-count indictment against six individuals, including Ervin and Elio Figueroa, alleging a heroin importation conspiracy from Guatemala into Rhode Island and related offenses.
- Several co-defendants pleaded guilty; Ervin and Elio Figueroa and Rodas contested the charges and sought suppression of wiretap evidence and a Franks hearing; the district court denied those motions.
- An 8-day trial featured 133 intercepted telephone calls, resulting in convictions of the Figueroa brothers on the general conspiracy count and several heroin-specific counts; Ervin was also convicted of cocaine with intent to distribute, money laundering conspiracy, and ten money laundering counts.
- The district court imposed sentences, and the appellants timely appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the wiretap suppression ruling, denial of Franks, admissibility of wiretap-derived evidence, and sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and Pinkerton liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap suppression denial proper? | Figueroa argues suppression warranted. | Government argues necessity and proper application. | Affirmed: denial proper. |
| Franks hearing required? | Appellants contend misstatements require Franks hearing. | Government argues predicate statements were peripheral or non-material. | Affirmed: no Franks error. |
| Admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)? | Government evidentiary theories flawed; need extrinsic support. | Evidence sufficient to show conspiratorial involvement. | Affirmed: sufficient extrinsic evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for heroin conspiracy and Pinkerton liability? | There was adequate proof of actual or constructive possession tied to counts. | Evidence supports either direct or Pinkerton liability. | Affirmed: ample evidence supports convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554 (1st Cir. 1989) (necessity of wiretaps; lesser-intrusive means considered)
- United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299 (1st Cir. 1987) (necessity and reasonableness of wiretap applications)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 988 F.2d 211 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam; standards for wiretap challenges illustrated)
- United States v. Citro, 938 F.2d 1431 (1st Cir. 1991) (Franks-related considerations in wiretap context)
- United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (extrinsic evidence and contemporaneous reviews of conspiracy evidence)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (liability for co-conspirators; Pinkerton theory applicability)
- United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (factors for conspiratorial liability and evidentiary standards)
- United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1993) (sufficiency of acquittal or conviction on drug counts; corroboration principles)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and credibility of evidence)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear-error standard for appellate review of factual determinations)